Mailing list for all users of the OCaml language and system.
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: henri dubois-ferriere <henridf@gmail.com>
To: Jon Harrop <postmaster@jdh30.plus.com>
Cc: Ocaml <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] lazy vs function for values that are used once at most
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:21:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d61254fb0406300721714b8eb@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200406301439.15289.postmaster@jdh30.plus.com>

ok.
actually, i should refine my question a little further:
in the vast majority of cases, the value is *not* used at all.
so i suppose the memoization overhead you mention does not occur when
a lazy value is not forced.

so, the question then becomes:

any difference in overhead between creating 
(lazy v)
and 
(fun () -> v)

?
thanks for any insights
henri







On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:39:15 +0100, Jon Harrop
<postmaster@jdh30.plus.com> wrote:
> 
> > when one has a value v that is going to be either used 0 or 1 time, is
> > there any difference in terms of overhead (ie for building the
> > closure,  GC performance, etc) between passing around  (lazy v) and
> > then forcing the value if needed, or passing around (fun () -> v) and
> > evaluating f when needed?
> 
> IIRC, Lazy is slower because of the (wasted, in this case) overhead of
> memoizing the result.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jon.
> 
> -------------------
> To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners


  reply	other threads:[~2004-06-30 14:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-06-30 13:31 henri dubois-ferriere
2004-06-30 13:39 ` Jon Harrop
2004-06-30 14:21   ` henri dubois-ferriere [this message]
2004-06-30 14:44     ` Frederic van der Plancke

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=d61254fb0406300721714b8eb@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=henridf@gmail.com \
    --cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
    --cc=postmaster@jdh30.plus.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox